SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J.

( 1 ) IN this reference under Section 256 (1) of the I. T. Act, 1961, the following question has been referred to this court:" Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the order of assessment for the assessment year 1964-65, made by the Income-tax Officer, was invalid and illegal?"the assessee is an individual and the relevant assessment year was 1964-65. The ITO computed the total income at Rs. 13,086, after making an addition of Rs. 11,000 as income from other sources. This sum was found to have been invested by the assessee in the firm of M/s. Mahabir Prosad Om Prakash in which he was a partner.

( 2 ) BEING aggrieved by the order of assessment, the assessee went up in appeal before the AAC. Finding that the assessment was completed without giving proper opportunity to the assessee and ignoring the evidence already on record, the AAC set aside the assessment with the direction to the ITO to dispose of the matter in accordance with law. On behalf of the assessee, a ground was taken that the assessment appealed against had become time-barred by operation of law as the ITO did not sign the demand notice nor the order within time. The AAC did not agree with this submission. According to him, as the ITO had computed the income, the question of limitation would not arise merely because the demand notice and the challan were not signed by the ITO in time.

( 3 ) BEING dissatisfied with the aforesaid order of the AAC, the assessee preferred a further appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. It was contended by the assessee that though the assessment order was signed, the demand notice, challan and assessment Form No. I. T. 30 did not bear any signature of the ITO and, hence, the assessment order was invalid. According to the assessee, the expression " assessment " had a comprehensive meaning and if there was any omission at any stage in the completion of the assessment, in terms of the provisions of Section 143 (3) of the I. T. Act, 1961, which included the signing of the papers mentioned above, namely, the demand notice, chal-lan and assessment form, such an assessment should be held to be illegal and void provided the necessary time-limit for completion of such assessment expired before the rectification of the lapses so committed by the ITO. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on certain decisions, to some of which our attention was drawn, and which we shall presently note. On the other hand, on behalf of the Revenue, it was urged that the absence of signature of the ITO was merely an irregularity which could have been made good by him and proper opportunity should have been given to him for so doing in view of certain decisions to which references were made before the Tribunal.

( 4 ) THE Tribunal observed after considering the rival contentions that, in the instant case, the notice of demand was not signed by the ITO though it bore the official seal. According to the Tribunal, this was a curable defect in the sense that there was no time-limit prescribed under the law for issuing a notice of demand after the completion of the relevant assessment and, hence, if the assessee so wanted, he could have demanded a notice of demand duly signed by the ITO, This was not done in this case. On the other hand, an appeal was preferred to the AAC by meeting all procedural formalities except for the notice of demand. As to the validity of the assessment, the Tribunal observed as follows :" There was no dispute that the relevant assessment order was passed within the time-limit prescribed under the law, that is to say, before March 31, 1969. "as we shall presently notice, from the narration of the subsequent facts, the Tribunal was not using the expression " assessment order " in the strict sense of the term under Section 143 (3) of the Act, otherwise the relevancy of the question in the subsequent controversy becomes irrelevant. The Tribu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document